Andrew Forrest’s hydrogen atom joke bombs; James Stevens coming up roses

Andrew Forrest gave a keynote speech at the Sydney Energy Forum dinner on Tuesday night. Picture: Oscar Colman

“Do you know what happens when two hydrogen atoms decide to have a threesome with an oxygen atom?” began Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest, opening his address to a Sydney Energy Forum dinner on Tuesday night.

The joke’s original punchline is too lewd for print, and ill-advised for a formal dinner. Forrest pressed ahead anyway with a sanitised version (“You’re all here because of it”) that not only bombed but also confused the industry representatives in attendance, judging by the low levels of mirth it generated.

That was just the start of a keynote speech bristling with unusual remarks that strayed significantly off course from the mining billionaire’s prepared spiel – provided earlier to journalists – on the evils of “greenwashing” in the mining sector.

Reporters were barred from setting foot inside the venue but a recording was smuggled out for Margin Call’s analysis. Perhaps Twiggy was feeling the effects of a late night before taking the stage.

But there’s no logical explanation for standing before a crowd of his peers and calling Prince Charles – a vigorous champion of crackpot homoeopathic medicine – a “prophet” on climate change, or anything else for that matter.

Forrest’s most pointed remarks seemed to be reserved for the apparent folly of carbon sequestration (“the ultimate greenwash”, as he dubbed it). There was also a sneer at London-based energy giant BP, which he attacked over its 40.5 per cent acquisition of an undeveloped clean-energy hub slated for the Pilbara region.

“Look over here I spent a couple of million bucks buying a big green hydrogen project in Western Australia … Let’s promote that as ‘BP is going green’. No, BP’s not going green. It bought an option on marketing,” he said, without a shred of irony.

It’s funny, because similar brands of criticism are levelled at Fortescue’s investments in green hydrogen, electrolysers and other magic beans which, as Forrest candidly admitted, continue to be elusive in their practical results, to say the very least.

“It is impossible right now to finance a green hydrogen project. We don’t know what it is,” he told the room. “We haven’t produced a bucket full of it yet.”

But it was when Forrest accidentally settled into a mode of unguarded comfort and addressed his audience as “gentlemen” – forgetting about the women in attendance – that an audible murmuring was picked up, forcing him to correct himself and deliver an unprepared disquisition on female executive power at Fortescue.

“I have a boardroom dominated by ladies, and so I make as many cracks as I can,” he said at first, slightly embellishing the board make-up, which is evenly split.

Then this: “Women are not better than men, but oh my god, have you noticed they’re different? And they think so differently.”

The point he was leading up to was that Fortescue’s women, and not its dull, automaton-like men, were the driving force behind the launch of FMG’s green-energy subsidiary, Fortescue Future Industries.

“I always say that men tend to look to the end of their executive careers, whereas the women I know look at least as far as their grandchildren’s lives. And it’s that vision which saw (FFI) come into existence,” Forrest said.

It took a bit of man-splaining, but at least the sentiment was sincere.

–

Rose by another name

Forgive an odious pun, but is this another war of the roses?

Roses Only founder James Stevens has launched an equity crowdfunding bid for his latest outfit, Mr Roses, which was started in 2019.

“Having established a strong platform, Mr Roses is now looking to turbocharge growth across Australia,” goes the pitch on crowd-funding website Equitise.

James Stevens.

Roses Only, a floral delivery service, sold its Australian arm in 2013 to FlowersCorp but retained the brand’s rights outside of Australia.

Appearing to be muscling back into the Australian market, Stevens’ new brand counts Liberal Party heavyweight and Business Sydney executive director Paul Nicolaou as a non-executive director; he’d held a similar role with Roses Only before its sale.

According to the pitch, Mr Roses pulled $5.4m in revenue during FY22 and has a customer base of about 35,000, owing to what it claims are more affordable products.

We’d sprinkle more flattering numbers here but, hey, does a rose need perfume?

–

Bain’s iNova interest

Final bids are drawing closer for the buyout of iNova Pharmaceuticals, and with Bain Capital the frontrunner we’re expecting this could end with the firm overpaying once again for its target – unless lessons have been heeded since the Camp Australia debacle.

Bain Australia chief executive Mike Murphy. Picture: John Feder

Our colleagues reported last month that Bain was shaping as the frontrunner to swallow up the cough-syrup maker after Swedish fund EQT exited the contest. Final bids close next Friday. Pacific Equity Partners and Carlyle paid $930m for the company in 2017 and are said to be aiming for a sale above $2bn. Was it something in the books that caused EQT to flee the iNova dataroom? That’s the rumour.

Entirely undaunted, Mike Murphy’s team at Bain appear to be questing ahead to secure a deal, pending advice from Goldman Sachs.

We won’t soon forget Bain’s foray into the childcare sector when it purchased before-and-after-school care company Camp Australia for a widely rumoured $460m, or about $100m above the nearest offer.

Terrible timing, all of that. The NSW government thereafter banned the organisation from providing its services over its apparent failure to meet quality requirements.

Bain’s due diligence appears to have also missed – or ignored – a string of penalties imposed by the West Australian government. And an order from the Fair Work Ombudsman that it repay $2.6m in unpaid wages to its employees.

The Queensland government issued dozens of charges against Camp Australia for understaffing and inadequate bookkeeping, and that was just months after the Bain deal was finalised.

Similar problems have persisted, so it’s little wonder the company’s alleged to be heavily indebted, to the tune of $335m, and heading towards administration.